A standing army for the United Nations? See the candidates who support it.
Globalist forces are pushing to give the United Nations a standing army consisting of 15,000 troops and personnel who could respond within 48 hours under the command of the U.N. Security Council (called the "U.N. Emergency Peace Service"). While that might make sense under certain circumstances, it could obviously be severly abused and might even result in U.N. troops - i.e., blue helmets - being deployed inside the U.S. Combined with the U.N.'s push for global taxation (such as through LOST), this would hasten the development of a world government.
The far-left internationalist group Global Solutions gave a questionnaire about U.N.-related issues to various candidates (globalsolutions.org/politics/elections_and_candidates/races/2008?action=cq) which included this question:
Will you cosponsor a resolution in Congress supporting the establishment of a U.N. Emergency Peace Service if one is introduced?
The answers to the other questions are interesting as well, but here are the responses from those who answered that question in support, ranked generally from worst to least worst:
Bob Alexander (D-MI 08)
Yes, as a former Peace Corps Volunteer and Teacher Corps Intern I fully support the needed Emergency Peace Service.
Daniel Seals (D-IL 10)
I believe that the establishment of UNEPS would drastically improve our ability to respond to humanitarian crises.
Stephen Todd Sarvi (D-MN 02)
The U.N. Emergency Peace Service is an idea whose time has come. It would enable quick responses to situations such as East Timor and Darfur However, the United States has very serious military readiness issues that must be addressed in order for us to participate responsibly in such a service. Additionally, questions need to be answered about command of the force and how it's paid for. This initiative must have wide backing and support within the world community as well, and the United States should not have to be the primary operator.
Darcy Burner (D-WA 08)
Yes, I would support a resolution in Congress supporting the establishment of a U.N. Emergency Peace Service if one is introduced. The ability of the U.N. to respond to deadly emergencies quickly is vital to their mission of ensuring peace and protecting human rights throughout the world.
Tom Udall (D-NM)
The creation of UNEPS as a permanent humanitarian crisis raid-response structure would go far in stabilizing how the international community reacts to emergency conflicts and situations. Although I would need to see the specific proposal, I am a strong supporter of international peacekeeping missions; I would support a permanent structure as long as it establishes clear goals, clear responsibility, and is fully equipped to deal in conflict resolution, emergency medical situations, natural disasters, and other emergency conditions around the world.
Jill Morgenthaler (D-IL 06)
As a former peacekeeper in Bosnia, I am keenly aware of how the rapid deployment of resources can minimize both dangerous situations and long term costs. The current mechanisms within the United Nations for addressing global hotspots take too long to spring into action. An emergency peace service would be able to match stated desires with desired action.
Jigar Ashwin Madia (D-MN 03)
I support an international conference to explore the concept of a U.N. Emergency Peace Service. Such an organization could greatly reduce U.N. response time in dealing with emerging crises. It is important for such an organization to have a narrow and clearly defined mission that is appropriately tailored to its humanitarian purpose.
Linda Stender (D-NJ 07)
I would need further information before I make a decision on this issue. One of my principal concerns in Congress would be to restore fiscal responsibility back to the federal government. I would be interested in seeing if, through efforts to fight waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, existing funding can be shifted toward the establishment of a UN Emergency Peace Service.
Gerry Connolly (D-VA 11)
The U.N. should have the capacity to respond to crises immediately and without having to convince member nations to contribute personnel.
Al Franken (D)
I would support anything that helps shorten the time it takes for peacekeepers to be deployed.
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Although I would need to see the specific proposal, I am a strong supporter of international peacekeeping missions.
Thomas Perriello (D-VA 05)
I believe the US and the UN have an affirmative obligation to prevent and stop genocide and crimes against humanity. In the absence of UN authority, the US can and must lead a multi-lateral effort in this regard, as was the case in response to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
Eric Massa (D-NY 29)
I believe that the current framework that exists within the United Nations in adequate, and I feel that we should operate within the framework of what already exists, while working to make sure that that framework is fully funded and fully functioning.
UPDATE: Here's a trick question you can try asking one of those who supports this plan. Pretend that you support the plan and ask something like:
You support the UNEPS, a standing military force for the United Nations that could be used in places like Darfur. Couldn't it also be used in case of a natural disaster inside the U.S. where our resources are strapped, such as in case of a terrorist attack or something like Katrina?
There's a good chance they'll say yes. The talking point will then become that they support U.N. troops operating inside the U.S., something that hopefully the vast majority of their potential voters would find repellent.